,
14 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
(Thread) Here's the full text of Barr's summary.
From P. 2: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
From P. 2: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
1/ P. 2: The SC determined two main Russian attempts to influence the election: To sow social discord, and computer hacking.
There are no sealed indictments.
SC referred several matters to other offices for further action.
As far as obstruction of justice . . .
There are no sealed indictments.
SC referred several matters to other offices for further action.
As far as obstruction of justice . . .
2/ SC decided "not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement" about obstruction and hence did not reach a decision. SC set out the evidence on both sides.
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
3/ Rosenstein and other DOJ officials decided not to prosecute obstruction of justice after "applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions."
This was partly because evidence didn't establish that he committed an underlying crime related . . .
This was partly because evidence didn't establish that he committed an underlying crime related . . .
4/ . . to the Russian election interference (which goes to motive to obstruct).
Yes, this is Barr's summary.
Basically, what Barr is saying is that (in his view) there's isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
SC declined to reach a conclusion.
Yes, this is Barr's summary.
Basically, what Barr is saying is that (in his view) there's isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
SC declined to reach a conclusion.
5/ Yes, Apex, that's what he's saying.
As a matter of law, this is wrong.
As a practical matter, if indeed a Trump-Russia conspiracy can't be proven, Trump's defense would be that he wanted to shut it down because he knew he committed no crime . . .
As a matter of law, this is wrong.
As a practical matter, if indeed a Trump-Russia conspiracy can't be proven, Trump's defense would be that he wanted to shut it down because he knew he committed no crime . . .
6/ . . . this is not a legal defense. But it might work in the Court of Public Opinion.
I need to think about this, but my off-the-cuff comment is that SC specifically said he did not exonerate Trump.
That came from Barr. . .
I need to think about this, but my off-the-cuff comment is that SC specifically said he did not exonerate Trump.
That came from Barr. . .
7/ . . . this does not preclude Congress from stepping in, demanding to see the evidence, and reaching a different conclusion.
That's why we have more than one branch of government. It keeps the executive branch. . .
That's why we have more than one branch of government. It keeps the executive branch. . .
8/ . . . from exonerating the head of the executive branch.
Congress makes the decision about whether the president committed impeachable crimes.
I expect that the House will now demand the full report & evidence, conduct its own investigation, and reach its own conclusion.
Congress makes the decision about whether the president committed impeachable crimes.
I expect that the House will now demand the full report & evidence, conduct its own investigation, and reach its own conclusion.
9/ Adding:
Yesterday I explained why, given the the constitution lays out a procedure for finding a sitting president guilty of criminal or impeachable conduct, it made sense to me that Mueller would not indict Trump. . .
Yesterday I explained why, given the the constitution lays out a procedure for finding a sitting president guilty of criminal or impeachable conduct, it made sense to me that Mueller would not indict Trump. . .
10/ . . . even though the legal scholars agree that a president can be indicted.
The Constitution gives the power to indict (impeach) and find guilt (remove) to Congress. This is why Barr and Rosenstein's assessment is not binding on Congress.
The Constitution gives the power to indict (impeach) and find guilt (remove) to Congress. This is why Barr and Rosenstein's assessment is not binding on Congress.
11/ I've also talked about the fact that prosecutors have a very high conviction rate (better than 90%) because they don't bring cases unless they are confident they can have evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is the disclaimer I've had on my website all year:
This is the disclaimer I've had on my website all year:
12/ This disclaimer cuts both ways. Not indicting (or impeaching, which is equivalent) does not necessarily mean a person is innocent.
Some crimes (like bribery which requires quid pro quo) are hard to prove. Others, like conspiracy, are much easier.
We're not finished yet.
Some crimes (like bribery which requires quid pro quo) are hard to prove. Others, like conspiracy, are much easier.
We're not finished yet.
end/
All my threads are now blog posts. You can view this one here: terikanefield-blog.com/reading-barrs-…
The blog post is a bit clearer than this thread, since I wrote most of this thread as I was reading the letter,
All my threads are now blog posts. You can view this one here: terikanefield-blog.com/reading-barrs-…
The blog post is a bit clearer than this thread, since I wrote most of this thread as I was reading the letter,
